You are also bothering to mention the religion of the owner, adding the (in this context) pejorative adjective "odd" and possibly more.

I mean, they are Christians and they are odd. Should he not be allowed to say this?

Absolutely allowed.

It does however feel weird in the same way that "odd female something", "odd muslim something", "odd socialist something", "odd atheist something".

Leaving out details that are not relevant is IMO smart because it helps the reader to avoid prematurely making up their mind because of irrelevant details.

So my take is tptacek should be allowed to write it and we should be allowed to point it out.

And one more thing: my respect for tptacek has been growing even if we clash from time to time in various settings.

For the record, I am also a Christian, and I suppose to an outsider Catholicism probably looks very odd indeed, what with the feet and the noses and the gall bladders in the jars in the cathedrals and whatnot. But David Jang's "The Community" is odd in a different way --- in a more "Reunification Church" kind of way. Maybe mentally replace "odd" with "idiosyncratic" or "noteworthy". It was late when I wrote that, and I was a bit into my cups.

The word I was originally going to use was the one articles about the new "Newsweek" use: "cult". But that didn't seem quite right either.

How do you know what people are thinking?

The magic of conversation

This seems unnecessarily antagonistic.

What’s a better way to ask?

This is known as 'sealioning'.

?

tptacek may have a conception of what people are thinking which doesn't match what they currently think.